Obama strides Closer to Victory
Barack Obama pulled closer to clinching the nomination last night, widening his lead over Hillary Clinton in voted delegates and in the popular vote. He overwhelmingly took Indianapolis and narrowed her earlier lead to only 2%, about 20,000 votes out of the hundreds of thousands cast. Obama even got 35% of working class whites in Indiana, which suggests that while Clinton is stronger with that constituency, Obama has an appeal there as well. He is clearly raising far more money than she, so voters are voting for him with their pocketbooks.
CBC writes of the two primaries last night,
' Exit polls in both Indiana and North Carolina showed the economy was the most important issue to voters, followed by the Iraq war. Concerns about Obama's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Clinton's attempts to paint him as an out of touch elitist, did not seem to be important to many voters.'
In other words, our corporate media keep giving us irrelevancies like someone's pastor or ad hominems (a Yalie who made $108 million in recent years is calling someone an 'elitist'?).
And the voters keep voting on the issues. They were unimpressed with Clinton's fantasies about 'totally obliterating' Iran. They appear to have liked Obama's talk of a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq, something the majority of the Iraqi parliament also wants. They were unimpressed with Clinton's pandering on a gasoline 'tax holiday'; a solid majority was unimpressed with attempts to damn Obama by association. Take out the over-65 crowd, and Obama did well with whites. He did overwhelmingly well with new voters.
A CBS/NYT poll over the weekend had showed that Obama had rebounded from the Rev. Wright controversy, was 11 points ahead of McCain, and that the general split on the gasoline tax holiday was 49 against, 45 for. The 18 cent federal gas tax pays for highway upkeep.
How tricky reading poll results is can be seen in this summary from AP. The article says 50% of voters in each state thought the Rev. Wright controversy important, and that of those who said that, 30% in Indiana voted for Obama and 40% in North Carolina. But that means 65% of voters in Indiana either didn't care or didn't let it affect their vote, with that proportion being 75% in North Carolina. It wasn't a determinative issue.
AP dismisses Iraq as "the top issue" for only 20% of voters. But actually for a fifth of voters to say that is their top issue at a time of severe economic woes for most people is quite remarkable. And if we asked if it was among their top three issues we'd find it was so for 100%.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/07/2008 07:37:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
14 Comments:
On this issue... what amazes me in when corporate media states that Clinton has a case to make. I thought that in democracy the winner is the one that gather more votes (in this case in point popular vote, pledge and super delegates), or am I missing something ?
If one considers only the battleground states, i.e., those which have voted for the Republican in some presidential elections and the Democrat in others, then Obama should be the candidate because he out polls Clinton in those states.
Some of us actually want people to be able to finish voting. Some of use want to see Florida and Michigan counted (Obama was _against_ a re-vote and you talk abotu democracy?). When about half the people prefer Hillary and half Obama I don't see what's democratic about telling one candidate to drop out before the voting is finished. At least let all of us voice our opinions in a race as closely contested as this.
Oh, and some of us also see the gas tax holiday (which, payed for by taxing corporations, wouldn't do much either way) as far less important than universal healthcare.
For several months the rap against Obama has been "he can't close the deal." These figures from eight months ago raise the question "Is it Clinton or Obama who can't close the deal?"
Hillary the unstoppable?
By: Roger Simon
13 September 2007
Since it is really too early to ask this question, let’s do it: Can anybody stop Hillary?
Can any of the other Democrats in the race stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination? Who? And how?
....A bunch of national polls released this week all show the same thing: Hillary is still way ahead of the pack, crushing her nearest rival, Barack Obama.
CNN: Hillary ahead by 23 percentage points.
New York Times/CBS News: Hillary ahead by 18 percentage points.
USA Today/Gallup: Hillary ahead by 21 percentage points.
Rasmussen: Hillary ahead by 21 percentage points.
ABC News/Washington Post: Hillary ahead by 14 percentage points.
RealClearPolitics, which does an excellent job of compiling and averaging the polls, showed Hillary ahead of Obama by an average of 19.6 percentage points in February [2007]. Today, it shows her ahead of Obama by an average of 19.4 percentage points.
That's not much slippage after seven months of campaigning.
Full story Here.
.
How can the Dems defeat the atavistic McCainites if they accept last night's description by Donna Brazile? She believes that the Democratic Party no longer has to rely on the votes of blue-collar workers and Hispanics; a new coalition of AA's, urbanites, and young people is the Dems'future.
In addition to setting aside "blue-collar" workers and Hispanics we could, as Prof. Cole said above: "Take out the over-65 crowd." I know that he didn't mean "obliterate" us but just remove us from the equation. (Ouch!)
What's necessary to defeat the Rovian-McCainites-corporate class Republicans is:
1. Dems have to agree on which states are "swing" and/or "battleground" and essential to winning in the Electoral College.
2. Look at the demographics of those states.
3. Analyze how each candidate performed in those states.
4. Count ALL legally-cast and state-certified votes in all the primaries. (Caucus vote numbers reflect delegates and not personally cast and identifiable ballots). Whatever party rules Brazile and Dean choose to apply and whatever remedies, the fundamental fact is that MI and FL were legimate and certified votes.
5. Analyze the above data in a hard-nosed way to see what the best solution is to beating the barbarians now in charge.
What the Republicans have in store for the nominee will be SOP and brutal.
Mr Cole,
OT
In referring to Moqtada's troops as "anti-american", are we not discounting the nationalist flavor of his troops? I can understand why the US govt will want to refer to him as such, though.
I have been reading your blogs for the past 12 months, and it has become my go-to site for informed comment on the ME.
Thank you. abiodun
You are wrong to call Hillary a Yalie. She went to Wellesley, and only went to Yale Law School. Bill Clinton (Georgetown)and Gerald Ford (Michigan)are NOT Yalies either, tho they also went to Yale Law School. George Bush (both of them) and Howard Taft are Yalies, so is Kerry, so is Leiberman.
So what's the deal with Obama's pastor? He has goofy ideas. What pastor doesn't--Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson? They all express irrational, illogical and impolitic ideas from time to time. They go to school for that. Not being a religionist (thank god), I don't give a rat's ass what any of them have to say.
As a Canadian I suppose I speak for some segment of the "English-speaking world beyond the US borders." Or at least I can claim a stage-side seat above this fracas that occurs below the 49th every 4 years.
I can also claim to have lived in the Middle East for years.
What "we" out here are having tremendous difficulty understanding is the failure of the democrats, or any serious opponent to the last seven years of Bush mayhem and horror, to come out and say: "vote for me and--war is over (very quickly)--economy becomes priority—habeas corpus and due process of law restored, and Guantanamo closed the day after I am elected—torture again made a criminal offence--no more free "wheeeeeeee" ride for the rich..." (Etc. etc.)
Is that so hard to say? Do the candidates--or potential candidates who decided not to run--fear for their lives with the spectre of a "lone nut gunman" scenario? Are there not "maverick" millionaires down there who would support this candidate in spite of his or her perceived salt on a snail effect on the corporatocracy, especially the implied budget cutbacks to the grotesquely bloated weapons industry in the United States? The world needs that weapons industry (with its Orwellian title of "Defense") trimmed. To the roots.
Instead we get "bomb-bomb Iran" from McCain who seems to have some sort of screw loose, and an even more blood-curdling--and let us speak plainly and call it, frankly deranged--escalation with Hillary's classic "straw man" promise to "obliterate" Iran should it ever seriously contemplate collective suicide by attacking Israel. Hillary's promise to bounce the rubble after Israel hits Iran with some 100-200 nukes after Iran acts out this fantasy scenario must be very reassuring to Israeli hawks (hey, "it's the thought that counts"?).
These sorts of remarks are not what most Americans will vote for in the next election; indeed, it is not what most voted for last time (in the view of many), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's miserable "peace for our time--impeachment is not on the table," pronouncement was felt to be a crushing betrayal of due process. They want the war over, last month--not 6 months, a year, five years from now. They want it NOW. Properly handled, impeachment might have even occurred by now. If this is the worst Republican administration in history, then surely the Democratic Party has earned the honour of mounting the most feeble and ineffective opposition in the same time-span, to blatant tyranny and assaults upon your very Constitution. They make the Copperheads of the Civil War look positively inspired; like their message or not, they were loud and strenuous in putting it across. The Democrats act as though they are being blackmailed behind the scenes to pull their punches. I don’t know how else to put it. They lack vision and belief in themselves. And in you.
And most Americans now realise the world wants this sickeningly unjust occupation over now, and they know America's badly tarnished image abroad would begin to regain some of it's lustre doing just that, along with some sort of compensation for all who have directly egregiously suffered from it. And they know we would gladly welcome this and support you.
Therefore I would say that, if Obama is indeed the man, he should start talking to the world in this election: we have a stake in reigning in a rogue state as much as anyone. I do hope he does at some point.
DR - Montreal
.
weird.
NYT has a lengthy article about a certain Iranian organization that is no longer to be considered by the British to be a terrorist organization.
At maybe 800 words, the article never once calls them by the name by which they're known in the USA, the "Mojahideen el Khalk," or MEK.
Avid Student
.
"He is clearly raising far more money than she, so voters are voting for him with their pocketbooks."
Vote with cash! What a great day for our American democracy, oops, I mean, oligarchy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
DR in Montreal,
Your problem is the same problem that most Americans have. You look at the shadows on the cave wall and mistake them for reality. They are the projection of the corporate plutocracy which owns "both" political parties and the mass media.
The Democrats are not in opposition to the Republicans. That is why they do not openly proclaim their opposition. They are not opposed.
They are projected as the opposition by the mass media. It's hard for me to believe that the majority of Americans still believes they are opposed to the same policies pursued by the Republicans, but that seems to be the case. Our minds really do belong to our televisions.
I challenge all of us to turn off our TVs for three months, and then to answer that you think the Democrats are in opposition to the Republicans. Probably only take one month, but lets make sure we really "dry out".
I cut you a little slack sir, from north of the border. I cannot cut us any slack any longer.
After nearly the full eight years there is no excuse for anyone in the United States of America to think that the Democrats are opposed to the policies pursued by their present "other half"; that they are somehow incompetent in pursuit of their true aims; that they are cowardly in pursuit of their true aims.
They are in hot pursuit of their true aims. Those they share with the Republicans. They have not interferred one iota with the realization of those aims. They have voted directly for those aims, time after time.
The idea that voting for a Democrat will somehow change the course this nation has been on for the past eight years would be laughable, if it weren't so plainly and murderously and tightly held onto by such a large proportion of our American population.
Gravel/McKinney/Nader. It'll probably take longer than one election cycle. Don't dwell on the four years wasted in 2004, or the two years wasted in 2006. There is more joy in heaven...
So we must start right now. We must replace the ersatz political "parties" with our own political machinery or just admit that its every man woman and child for themselves, stupidly splitting the difference between where we are and total debasement, on the way to total impotence with every new "election" that takes place.
John Francis Lee:
I'm sure you were aware of this already but for the benefit of anyone who is not, here's a bit of information the Establishment media and the Establishment political party (or some say there are two parties) try to keep very quiet:
Many American voters are under the mistaken impression that their choice is limited to the "official party nominee" candidates whose names are pre-printed or pre-posted on the voting machine ballots.
That is not the case. Forty-two out of the fifty states permit "write-in" votes to be cast in federal elections. By "write-in" I don't mean vote at home and mail it in. I mean it's perfectly legal in most states to physically or electronically write in the name of whomever one pleases for a particular office. It can be one of the celebrity candidates who didn't get the official nomination, or it can be your cousin, or your neighbor or a guy or girl you work with. Or whomever.
Listed below are the eight states that do not permit write-in votes for President. All other states DO allow write-in votes.
Write-in votes not permitted in:
1.) Hawaii
2.) Louisiana
3.) Nebraska
4.) Nevada
5.) New Mexico
6.) Oklahoma
7.) South Carolina
8.) South Dakota
Ref: Here.
Write-in votes ARE permitted in every state not listed above.
If more American were fully cognizant of the fact that they can "write-in" the name of whomever they please for office they wouldn’t need to agonize over who is officially nominated by the Establishment Political Parties.
P.S. The counting of write-in votes is not any more reliable or honest than the vote counts for the official nominee candidates of course, but every American voter should be aware that he or she has the write-in option available.
John Francis Lee,
I think if you look again at what I posted you will see that you are basically preaching to the converted here. I used the word "corporatocracy" to suggest a de facto one party state, and pointed up the anemic Democratic Party "opposition" to suggest the same. You are correct: they do not oppose--the question I was out to raise is, why? Why is there no opposition centre of gravity to reflect what people want; i.e. an end to the brutally stupid occupation of the former Iraq for starters.
It is not much different up here, I haven't voted myself for ages because of a perceived near total failure of "political parties" to deal with issues that corporations very much do want to see raised; again, no effective opposition “party” in sight.
Likewise I haven't watched TV news since the cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad and a CBC talking head, wearing a helmet, breathlessly spoke about "shock and awe" as people were being killed in the background at night--at a distance and safely out of sight. To sit and passively give that narrative credibility would be to fall victim to a form of Sartrean nausea. I, like many, turned it off.
Neither did I endorse Obama in my post, and my wondering why some "rogue candidate out of nowhere" could not appear and take on the "corporatocracy", funded by some maverick entrepreneur with decidedly leftist sentiments was, I suppose, the last scenario I could see changing things fast enough to avoid the impending catastrophe; that is, outside of a revolution or military coup in the United States to remove a cabal of war criminals who are, incredibly, still in power, and rattling their bomb racks at Iran no less.
The saddest thing in all this is that countries like my own have stood back and allowed it all to happen, if not actively endorsing the bogus "war on terror," and in the case of Canada, after declining to take part in the Iraq massacre, we nonetheless now find ourselves with occupation troops in Afghanistan killing (and getting killed by) “resistance fighters.” Mercenaries are what our troops would have been called in the colonial past—auxiliary troops for the larger imperialist power. I don't cut my country any slack at this point either.
The anti-war movement in the West, not just the U.S., is strangely apathetic. The world’s only “hyper-power” seems to be slouching towards a fascist dystopia with vastly increased surveillance, enhanced police powers, and direct threats to personal liberties in place that would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago. I think Orwell saw it all—the world carved up between 2 or 3 immense hegemonies cynically engaged in a perpetual war for resources. The virtual overthrow of free journalism and employment of government newspeak is perhaps the most chilling development in all of this. Juan Cole’s immense distillation of history in the Middle East, as it is happening, is part of a global counter-dialogue largely centered upon the internet, one that effectively denies corporate hegemony the power to rewrite, or even erase history. Orwell, in 1984, saw this as the penultimate threat:
"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."
DR - Montreal
Post a Comment
<< Home